The American election system is pretty convoluted at the best of times and foreigners can be excused for being utterly baffled by it. One general feature of this system is that political parties are weak entities and what membership in them means is informal and largely determined by the individual states and can vary. The party leadership does not get to choose which candidates represent them in a general election. Instead that is decided in a preliminary election called a primary election held several months before the general election in which voters get to decide which of the candidates should represent their party in the general election.

Who gets to vote in their primary election is not controlled by the parties either. In some states, when one registers to vote, one is asked to pick a party preference. Based on that, one is sent a party ballot for the primary election. But it is usually easy to switch from one party registration to another. In some other states, one can just show up on primary day and ask for ballot for one party and vote for a candidate from that party to be the nominee in the general election. Doing so automatically registers you as having that as your party choice. In the next election, one can choose to vote for a member of the other party and your preference gets switched. This sometimes results in devious voting where a Republican (say) votes in the Democratic primary for the candidate that they think the Republican could beat most easily in the general election. It is not clear if this strategy has ever worked but the idea periodically gets promoted.

When living in Ohio, I did not vote in primary elections and so was not registered as a member of any party and thus considered an ‘independent’. This was because the primary elections were never tightly contested. When I moved to California nearly seven years ago, I continued to maintain my independent status by not voting in any primaries because it did not seem to matter. But the current election for the governorship has forced me to vote in the primary because the stakes have become higher and the process is even more convoluted. But I am struggling to make my choice.

In this state they have what is called a ‘jungle primary’ in which all the candidates are on a single ballot, irrespective of their party affiliations. You get to vote for one of them and the top two finishers move on to the general election. This can result in both candidates in the general election claiming allegiance to the same party.

The California governor’s race this year illustrates how this can create a really complicated picture. There are a total of 61 (!) candidates, 24 of whom say that their party preference is Democratic, 12 say Republican, one says Libertarian, one says Peace and Freedom, and the rest list no party preference. Note that the parties have no say in this. Anyone can say they are affiliated with any party. All that the parties can do is endorse a candidate, to give them their seal of approval. We also have gadfly candidates, identifiable by their names such as LivingForGod AndCountry DeMott (yes, that is his full name) and Barack D. Obama Shaw. They are like the Official Monster Raving Loony Party in the UK but not as much fun.

The state now leans heavily Democratic and in a general election between a Democratic and Republican candidate, the Democrat would win handily. But in the jungle primary system, it is possible with so many candidates that the Democratic candidates so split the vote among them that two Republicans squeak through to the top.

On the Republican side, the two leading candidates are Steve Hilton, a British expatriate who has never held elected office and used to be a political apparatchik in the Conservative party until he moved to the US in 2012, and Chad Bianco, the Republican sheriff of Riverside county who used be a member of the far-right extremist group known as the Oath Keepers, key players in the January 6th uprising. Both are MAGA Trumpers and thus should be kept out of the top two.

Hilton seems to be in the mold of Trump, a provocateur.

“He would be terrible!” said one government adviser who worked in No 10 at the same time as Hilton. “He is someone who was very quickly insanely frustrated with how government works in reality. He comes in with these incredibly wild ideas, wants them all to happen instantly, isn’t interested in compromise, and when it doesn’t happen he throws his toys out the pram.”

Some have expressed surprise that the man credited for making the Tories seem more liberal had gone on to become a “hardcore Maga” supporter who claims to have Trump “on speed-dial”.

But a good friend of his believes this misunderstands Hilton: “He’s not gone from a cuddly Cameroon to a hard-Maga populist – it’s more nuanced. He is a disruptor and believes in shaking as much up as possible. That is what Cameroonism was.” Indeed, he still refers to himself as an environmentalist and says tackling the climate crisis is important. He has claimed that Democrats “steal” his ideas.

Would Hilton’s penchant for disruption land well in the US? “I don’t think the Californians would appreciate it,” one former colleague said. “He loses his temper very quickly. I feel he found the act of governing and the compromises required almost beneath him.”

Bianco is also bad.

Bianco came under scrutiny in March after revealing that his office had seized more than 650,000 ballots cast in a 2025 statewide election as part of a fraud investigation, one that even Republicans had accused of being “politically motivated.”

Another article looks at his campaign promises.

Part of Bianco’s prescription for turning California around: cracking down on theft and drug offenses, stiffening sentences for both petty and violent crime, building more detention facilities, collaborating with federal immigration forces to deport immigrant offenders, and demanding greater personal accountability from homeless people suffering from mental illness and drug addiction.

Of course I will not vote for either of these two.

From the point of view of a voter like me, there is a tactical issue to consider. If the main goal is to prevent either of these Republicans from winning, it makes sense to vote for the Democrat who is likely to get the most votes, to make sure that they make it into the top two. If that person’s policies are agreeable, then there is no problem. But what if the person you like is not polling well and the leader is someone you dislike? Voting for the former might mean two Republicans get the top spots.

This is what poses the problem.. The original Democratic front runner was a congressman named Eric Swalwell until a sexual assault and harassment scandal not only forced him out of this race but also resulted in him resigning from congress. The five Democratic candidates leading in the polls are Xavier Becerra (a former cabinet member in the Obama administration), former congresswoman Katie Porter, billionaire businessman Tom Steyer, former Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond.

A poll was released this week.

Republican Steve Hilton and Democrat Xavier Becerra each capture 18% of voters, according to an EVITARUS tracking poll commissioned by the California Democratic Party. 

Republican candidate Chad Bianco follows with 14%, then Democratic candidate Tom Steyer with 12%.  Democrats Katie Porter and Matt Mahan are neck and neck with 8% and 7%, respectively, while Antonio Villaraigosa and Tony Thurmond each hold 2% or less. Fourteen percent of voters remain undecided. 

So as it stands, the top two are Hilton and Bererra but a lot can happen between now and the final day of primary voting on Tuesday, June 2nd. Early voting began on Monday the 4th.

There is a real risk of the two Republicans finishing in the top two. Democratic party officials hope that one (or two) of their candidates will emerge as clear leaders to prevent such a scenario. They are also trying to persuade some candidates to drop out and coalesce behind another with a better chance of winning but politicians have big egos and when it comes to the good of the party or their own ambition, the latter usually wins out.

In the next post, I will discuss in more detail the Democratic candidates and the problem I face of deciding whom to vote for.